One of the concerns I have with the argument against the West Davis Active Adult Community is the point it implicitly makes against land dedication sites for affordable housing.
The opposition argues that there is “no guarantee that the required low-income housing will ever be built.” They write: “West Davis Active Adult Community will not build ANY low-income housing itself like every other major development in Davis has done in recent years. Instead, the developer is donating less than 10% of the total project land on which low-income housing MAY be built – but only IF another non-profit can raise the millions of grant monies needed for construction. In this time of shrinking government budgets, there is no assurance these funds will EVER be available to build this required low-income housing.”
Part of why the land would revert to the city is to make sure that affordable housing gets built on the site.
This is from the development agreement: “If building permits for a minimum of sixty (60) units on the affordable housing site have not been issued within three years of recordation of the final map creating the parcel, the affordable housing site will be transferred to the City.”
While it is probably true that affordable housing will get built there, they are technically correct that there is no guarantee (and no way to guarantee) that the affordable housing will get built there.
The one thing we can say is that the way a land dedication site works, there is no financial incentive for the housing not to get built. The land is dedicated regardless, it won’t revert back to the developer if it doesn’t get built, they can’t put market rate housing there, and the costs for the affordable housing are borne by the non-profit affordable housing developer through grants and subsidies, not through the developer.
One of the big challenges for affordable housing is to get land where the affordable housing can be built. Even if cities have available in-lieu fees or grants, they might not have land. So Davis
has traditionally used land donated by market-rate developers to facilitate the development of affordable housing.
The way a land dedication works is that the developer dedicates a portion of land for affordable housing to be built on. They then find an affordable housing developer, who then has to find the financing through a combination of grants, government programs, and potentially the affordable housing funds.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this type of affordable housing. One of the disadvantages is that the affordable housing will be separate from the market rate housing. At Nishi for instance, the affordable housing was integrated into the rest of the site, and no one will ever know whose place is affordable and whose isn’t.
However, the big advantage of land dedication is we really can get to the 35 percent affordable housing level. That is because the housing is developed by non-profits and others who specialize in developing affordable housing communities. They have access to grants and government funding that the developers of an on-site, integrated affordable housing project do not have.
I find it ironic then that some of the same people complaining that the city has reduced the affordable housing requirements, from 35 to 15 percent, are now complaining about this affordable housing project.
One of the authors of the ballot opposition argued that they do not support land dedications because they believe it will be abused. They believe that each developer should be made to actually build their own low-income housing on-site.
The city could have done that. They could have compelled this developer to build affordable housing that was integrated and to set aside 15 percent of the units as affordable. But that would have come with a cost as well.
Instead of having 150 affordable housing units which this site has, it would have 60, as required by the city ordinance.
There is a trade-off here.
Given the loss of RDA (Redevelopment Agency) money, affordable housing resources are scarce. But if we are going to make the argument as the opponents of this project do, that we can’t guarantee the affordable housing can get built, and therefore we should require the owners to do it on-site and pay for it themselves, then what we are really arguing against is the concept of land dedication itself. We are precluding probably the one way we can approach 35 percent affordability in a post-RDA world.
I think at the very least we ought to have the discussion over whether that is really what we want. Clearly some of the opponents of this project are simply against land dedication. But I think the broader community needs to understand the implications.
We also have to understand, there are not going to be many land dedication projects. They require land to be set aside and that means, for the most part, only peripheral subdivisions are going to have land dedication sites.
This also means that pretty much only Measure R projects will have them. Although Sterling Apartments is the exception, they set aside a separate parcel created for their 38-unit affordable apartment community, which will be developed by Mutual Housing California.
We can’t have it both ways. If we want more affordable housing, there is a trade off in a post-RDA world. We have external funding, and for the most part that requires land dedication to pull it off. With land dedication, we are reliant on an affordable developer and funding to get the project built.
There should be enough safeguards to get it done, but the opponents are right about one thing – there is no guarantee. There rarely is.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Another day of neutrality on the WDAAC by The Davis Vanguard.
(see right column)
David’s representation of the facts are misleading here. He notes that Sterling is also donating land at their development and that the non-proft, Mutual Housing will develop the project implying this is much the same at WDAAC. This could not be further from the truth.
Yes, Sterling is donating the land used for the low-income housing as a separate but contiguous parcel just like at WDAAC, but the amount of land donated by Sterling is 17.2% of the project total (1.03 acres/6 acres) while at WDAAC it is only 5.7% (4.25 acres /74.5 acres).
Additionally as reported in the Staff Report recommending Council approve the project,
“The proposed Affordable Housing Plan is contained in the Development Agreement. It requires
provision of 38 affordable rental units and a $2,025,000 contribution to help with development of
the affordable project. No City subsidy is anticipated. The site will be developed by Mutual
Housing California, an affordable housing developer chosen by the applicant for this project.”
A $2,025,000 contribution / 38 apts = $53,289/Apt
David Thompson of Neighborhood Partners (the likely developer of the WDAAC low income housing site stated before the Planning Commission on November 8, 2017 that the required low-income contribution for WDAAC would be 76 units not the 60 units claimed by David in this article.
If the same per apartment contribution to actually build the low-income housing were made by WDAAC as was made by Sterling, WDAAC would be providing over $4,000,000 in additional funding to the low income housing construction
76 units x $53,289 per unit = $4,049,964
The amount of money actually provided by Taormino toward his low income housing obligation at WDAAC is $O. That would be a Zero with a capital Z.
C’mon David, you claim neutrality on the project but you continue to misrepresent the facts in the developers favor. In doing so you do not do justice to your readers.
” He notes that Sterling is also donating land at their development and that the non-proft, Mutual Housing will develop the project implying this is much the same at WDAAC. This could not be further from the truth.”
I believe this statement as written is false. They are both land dedication affordable sites, and both will be developed by an affordable developer. There is nothing in my comment that “could not be further from the truth.”
You go on to state that Sterling is using more land than WDAAC. Okay. But I never made a comment either way on that. There is not an acreage requirement that I’m aware of.
“The amount of money actually provided by Taormino toward his low income housing obligation at WDAAC is $O. That would be a Zero with a capital Z.”
Except that statement is misleading as well. He is donating land, which costs money. That’s just dishonest of you. I have not misrepresented a single fact here, other than pulling the required number of units out of the staff report that apparently was wrong.
That doesn’t not anti-ex reassure me.
> and no one will ever know whose place is affordable and whose isn’t.
Unless it’s leaked
The “Scarlet A” will be virtual but no less public.
So there won’t be any.
I appreciate very much that the segregation caused by land dedication – yes, not as bad as when people can’t afford any housing in the entire city! – is mentioned as a disadvantage, but I don’t understand what is the formal barrier to structures themselves – not just parcels and so on – having development partners.
There is no developer subsidy at Nishi 2.0 – just lower prices for some – but I do appreciate the attempt at integration there, unless of course it ends up being poorer people in shared rooms… between a minority paying okay and a majority paying exorbitant rent.
Cannery has its lower-income housing in the area closest to Covell, and Sterling 5th also has a separate structure – and I will never forget when I commented to the lack of concern of Mutual Housing’s head at the final hearing how kids living in the lower-income housing would be able to hear others in the pool, but not be able to use the pool. (At the Cannery, the pool is an integrated one, but closer to the wealthy houses, and also bizarrely right next to a public park with its entrance pointed to it…)
And higher prices for “the rest”.
Think deep south, 1950’s…
Some posters here seem to think that way, but hide it in a P-A way…
It’s a separate entity, with separate entrances, parking, bike parking etc…. also directly fronting the sometimes early AM noisy post office.
Sure, they might allow the kids access unless lawyers forbid it unless less there’s a volunteer lifeguard. I think they are planning to give kids passes to use the pool at e.g. Slide Hill, which is a poor substitute (kids might like going there for obvious reasons…)
Sure you will. It consists of the shared, non-subsidized rooms (as noted many times, in previous articles). In other words, there is no Affordable/subsidized housing at Nishi. Should I provide links to the article from a couple of days ago, which clearly shows this (and which wasn’t even disputed)?
One of the things that’s truly “impressive” about the Vanguard is its continued, daily mission to misstate the facts. I guess the editor thinks that everyone has short-term memory problems.
As noted by another commenter (Rik), the Very-Low-Income (VLI) residents at Nishi will be subsidizing the “market rate” residents. However, by the same token, it could be argued that the remaining 1/3 of the “Affordable” beds (for Extremely-Low-Income units) are subsidized, depending upon what comparison is used:
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/08/monday-morning-thoughts-public-policy-questions-rarely-yes-no-answers/#comment-390798
Ron:
I am wondering if you have done any independent research to verify the claims made by another poster that run counter to information put out by both the city and developer? Have you talked to the city? Have you talked to the developer? Have you done anything other than repeatedly copy and paste a regurgitation of his claims without any verification? Otherwise it seems to me that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of – repeating a lie often enough hoping it will be accepted somehow as the truth.
Craig: Looking forward to any data/analysis you have which disputes this. I understand that Rik’s analysis uses the numbers that were provided by the developer. Are you stating that this is not the case?
So by your way of reasoning you believe you can repeat anything ad nauseam that someone else posts without any verification or fact checking, and because someone else posted it you have no obligation to make sure its not complete nonsense?
Craig: The data from Rik have been posted a number of times. I believe he also posted entire articles regarding this.
So far, no one has claimed that it’s inaccurate – including you. Clearly, some folks don’t like it, though. And have tried to pick it apart on anything and everything, except actual facts. (You would also fall into that “camp”.)
Again, looking forward to anything you post which shows that the data and analyses are incorrect.
The burden is on the person making the claim to back up the claim, it is not on me to disprove it. Moreover, both the developer and David claim that the numbers are inaccurate, and David posted to that effect earlier this week. I can’t find it on my phone here, but I read it earlier – I think you even responded to the post without acknowledging its content or refuting its claims.
Bottom line: I call bs on the factual basis of your post, put up or shut up
Well, the burden is on you, then. I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
If the numbers are inaccurate, I’m pretty sure that David did not say so. Here’s a link to the article, from 2 days ago:
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/08/monday-morning-thoughts-public-policy-questions-rarely-yes-no-answers/
You consistently display a level immaturity on this blog. And not just when responding to me. If you’d like, I can point this out the next time it occurs.
Wondering how you know what the developer claimed. I don’t recall any posts from the developer on this blog lately.
Here we go David’s response:
“Wondering how you know what the developer claimed.”
There is amazing technology that allows people to contact virtually anyone on the planet, instantly. You keep making claims, have you even once talked to the developer or the city?
You have the developer on speed dial?
No, I’ve never spoken to the developer. I have spoken to representatives from the city, but I haven’t spoken to the “city” entity, itself.
Why are you speaking to the developer? And, has he shared data/information with you, that he’s not sharing publicly?
You’re so last century – speed dial?
More immaturity. Again, why are you communicating with the developer? And, has he shared information with you that’s not publicly available?
The real question is why don’t you? I’m sure he’d prefer you asking him rather than regurgitating alll the posts that you agree with.
Craig:
You’re the one who claims to be representing the developer’s claims, on here. Not me.
What did he tell you?
You’re just playing games now. I’m done. don’t bother responding, I’m put you on ignore.
I guess Craig wanted to “tag out”.
But, he did note some points from David. Let’s see if we can address those:
Pretty sure that I previously responded to this. But let’s try again.
Rik (and the data presented) showed that the Nishi developers will, in fact, making more money from the majority of “Affordable” double-occupied rooms, compared to the market-rate single-occupied rooms. Perhaps the developer has determined that demand is insufficient to make all of the rooms double-occupied.
Regarding size of the rooms, it would be difficult to perform a straight calculation to determine if that is the reason that the double-occupied “Affordable” rooms are more expensive. There is normally a premium associated with single-occupancy rooms. In any case, David has not provided a comparison regarding the size of the rooms.
Regarding market rate and Affordable double-occupied rooms, this might be a more viable point. However, no numbers have been provided regarding the number in each category, the amount of rent, or (again) the size of the rooms.
Regarding “subsidies” in general, it is difficult to determine if anything is being subsidized, or (more importantly) who is subsidizing it – especially when the entire Affordable housing “program” is being run by the developer/owner. If a room is truly being rented below market value, then one can assume that there’s a subsidy. But, a developer/owner can theoretically subsidize it without passing the cost onto other renters.
The complications surrounding this issue are a predictable result, from allowing the same developer/owner to “operate” their own Affordable housing program, vs. having a separate entity involved.
OK – Forget the acreage, the number of units, and the floorspace.
Let’s assume Sterling and WDAAC each gave enough land to build the required number of low-income apts. So let’s then just look at the developers cash contribution toward construction of each per low-income apartment on that land
Sterling = $53,249 /low-income apt
WDAAC = $0/low-income apt
So, to whom did the Council give the better deal?
This is a reasonable question and criticism. However, it must be pointed out that in the case of Sterling, the CC was the final arbiter of the project. With WDAAC, because of Measure R, it is the voters who are the final arbiters. It simply isn’t reasonable to blame the CC when they are not the ones making the decision. As long as Measure R is on the books, you will need to look in the mirror to determine who is responsible for the ultimate ‘deal.’
The city council has responsibility to review development proposals to ensure that they comply with city regulations and goals, even for development proposals that appear on the ballot.
Otherwise, developers could simply present proposals directly to voters – without going through the various commissions and council. (Perhaps some would prefer that.)
That is exactly what you get with Measure R. The voters are the final arbiters and consequently the ones responsible. The process of direct democracy completely negates the value of the commissions and the CC. Embrace what you have chosen and accept the responsibility.
That is absolutely not what you get with Measure R. All Measure R proposals go through the same commissions and council as any other proposal.
The only difference is that Measure R then gives voters the final opportunity to weigh in, on peripheral development proposals.
If the council doesn’t approve a Measure R proposal first, voters won’t ever even see it.
WDAAC does not “have a deal”… or are you saying that you are far less than confident that your campaign to nix Measure L will be unsuccessful?
As someone said on another thread, “verrrry interesting”… (quoting Arte Johnson’s character)
‘Sterling = $53,249 /low-income apt
WDAAC = $0/low-income apt“
How much is four acres of land worth on the periphery of Davis? Howard, any idea?
Before or after annexation?
Mark is correct… valuation is contingent on zoning/entitlements… and many other factors, including willingness of owner to sell…
I’ve removed some comments. Please stay on topic. Thanks.
Clearly, the city needs to move beyond the interim Affordable housing policy that’s currently in place, and come up with something more permanent, consistent, and suitable in regard to the flood of development proposals. Wasn’t there a consultant involved in this process? If so, what is the status of their report?
Or, is the city simply going to keep approving developments without an adequate and consistent policy in place, and hope that the state “comes to the rescue” at some point in the future – after developments have already been approved?
Good luck with that. Anti-growth activists want developers to pay for all of it. Developers say they can’t build projects if that’s mandated. Let me know what the middle ground is on that, and how you’ll politically achieve it as policy.
The city will have to do so, at some point. It’s not likely to be worked out in the Vanguard comment section. Supposedly, this is why the city is using a consultant regarding the issue.
I suspect that some of the “growth activists” (who are often aligned with, or are actual developers) are hoping that someone else will pay for it (e.g., taxpayers, statewide). Of course, some of these same folks also consistently complain about the cost of housing, but oppose policies that would require developers to include Affordable components. Unless developers open their books to “prove” they can’t afford it, such claims are meaningless.
Do you know what the status of the consultant’s report is?
And they won’t, so there’s your standoff. No resolution, no policy.
Nope. And it’s not an issue I care all that much about, for reasons I’ve articulated before.
In the meantime, lots of development proposals and approvals. An “arse-backward” way of doing things.
Seems like you do care a great deal about the issue (affordability), but oppose policies to address it. (Not asking you to explain that, again.)
Consultants should generally be able to determine viability, even if individual developers won’t open their books to back their claims.
“Consultants should generally be able to determine viability, even if individual developers won’t open their books to back their claims.”
That’s precisely what happens and what they did. You then either ignore or disregard their findings.
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/02/initial-development-economic-analysis-proposed-student-housing-project-47-acre-nishi-site/
That’s a rather hostile response, to a straightforward question.
I had not previously seen that article. Matt is the only one who commented, and noted that the city chose to use the information in the report without the benefit of an FBC review.
I recall that the city essentially “tailored” their interim Affordable housing policy to match what the developers proposed, at Nishi and Lincoln 40. And, were unwilling to wait for a final report from the consultants, dealing with more than those two development proposals.
I was asking about the final report, which would presumably address the city’s Affordable housing policy, in general.